In my simplistic non-legal laymans view, I don't think that it's fair to say that anyone is infringing on anyone else's particular intellectual property - when the actual infringing intellectual property hasn't been clearly defined or stated.

That's the best summarizing of the real problem with Microsoft's patent threats to based on FOSS. I absolutely agree.

Cheers,
~Dave

Now that should be fireworks worth watching. Red Hat is no small fry. I'd love to see M$ try that in Europe. Trouble is that most of their 'patents' are invalid there and probably in the US too if tested. M$ did say some time ago that they won't openly say what patents because that would open them to challenge and they might lose the patents. Red Hat has the muscle to challenge and demand open statement of the basis of threat in court.

" insisting on respect of its intellectual property rights by its competitors"

Two things wrong with that statement:

1. "intellectual property" implies ownership of ideas, desirable (from the "owner's" point of view) but not entirely supported in existing patent and copyright law.

2. "respect" of claims to own ideas may not be warranted. I can claim ownership of anything I want. That doesn't make it true or worthy of respect.

Microsoft seems to have forgotten how development works. Good ideas are used as the basis for better ideas. Fair competition produces better products and people who come up with ideas move on and reuse them in other environments. To limit this free flow of ideas would be a bad thing for innovation.

Microsoft's refusal to give details about their specific patent claims are an essential part of their tactic.

It is reminiscent of SCO's unwillingness to disclose the specifics of their claims of widespread copying of code from UNIX into Linux. It is about FUD, not about "intellectual property." the specifics of their claim would be open to attack and litigating these details isn't their desire--they don't want anyone looking too closely. It is about fear of the uncertain and the target is customers not Red Hat or any particular vendor.

That whole statement by their legal counsel is dubious and deceptive. Microsoft files a lot of junk patents which are obvious non-inventions. Claiming that somebody is "not respecting intellectual property" for this sort of junk is cleverly written double-speak. For the ignorant masses (MCSE and such) it sounds like a legitimate statement and expectation, but amounts to little more than slander as there is no "violation" if you're using a simple and obvious programming technique no matter who claims they own it.

"We have shown our openness to licensing our patented inventions on commercially reasonable terms even to our direct competitors."

That must be why they resisted, tooth-and-nail, for several years, any attempts by the EU Commission to get them to license their protocols.

"Microsoft has been consistent in its approach to the issue of IP and open source software."

You got that right.

If Microsoft was aware of patent violations yet failed to take action, they should lose the right to defend the patents in question.

Quite simply Microsoft are lying. If they had wanted to they could have licensed their code under the GPL v2 *or later*. Instead, they licensed their code under the GPL v2, without the "or later" clause. In doing so, they have cut off their code from being used in any projects licensed under GPL v3, the current version of the license. The GPL v3 gives better protection against patent claims, so it is obvious why they would want to avoid it.

It is Microsoft Legal that is not respecting IP by:

1. Patenting many ideas of no or little technical value (other than a legal weapon).

2. Not identifying clearly when their patents are being violated, precisely because of point 1.

Will someone hurry up and blast these morons for blackmail under false pretenses? It's getting really annoying.

Also, indeed, I don't see how they can still have the right to those patents. They have been threatening to sue Linux vendors over them since April 2007. In all that time they have failed to show us what the patents are. They have not acted to protect them and they have not acted on their threats, either.

They are wielding patents entirely as PR weapons, which, while a handy side-effect for broken companies like Microsoft, is a complete abuse of that system.